All of the above?

posted at 10:01 am on May 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As we head into the general election, Barack Obama will have to address rising energy costs, at the pump and at the outlet. His campaign has already begun making the case that Obama has an “all of the above” energy policy, remaining open to all sources of energy in order to fuel the American economy. Team Obama even has a page on their website titled “All of the Above”:

Let’s take a closer look at that graphic, though. Notice anything missing from this “all of the above” representation?

Let me give you a hint. It’s dark, hard, comes out of the ground, and creates jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans. That’s right — coal. But hey, that’s no big deal, right? We don’t rely much on coal in the US. Why, it only accounts for, er … 46% of all electricity produced in the US:

Coal provides 46 percent of U.S. electric power generation, providing power for more than 60 million homes and 3.4 million businesses. The U.S. uses 979.6 million short tons of coal to generate 1,850.8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.

Direct and indirect employment generated by U.S. coal mining accounts for 555,270 jobs, for a combined payroll of $36.3 billion.

In fact, that Team Obama graphic is terribly misleading. According to EIA statistics for 2010, 88.3% of all electrical production came from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Wind only accounted for 2.3%, while solar power didn’t even account for enough for one decimal place, amounting to just 0.0294% of all electricity produced in the US for the year. Biofuels added 1.4%.

What this graphic says is that Obama sees no role for coal in America’s energy future. What will replace it, and when? Obama and his administration have already been conducting a war on coal for the last three years. If they drive coal out of business, there isn’t anything ready to replace it except perhaps natural gas — which the Obama administration has been blocking with new rules and restrictions on fracking. That means energy prices will necessarily skyrocket, with shortages, brownouts, and rationing the rule rather than the exception across the US. And let’s not forget the half-million people employed by the coal industry who will find themselves out of work, too.

The Obama idea of “all of the above” comes up significantly short of all. It’s why his energy policy doesn’t add up.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

What this graphic says is that Obama sees no role for coal in America’s energy future.

This right here should tip the balance in Ohio to Romney. Eastern Ohio is coal country and also tends to vote Democratic (labor union country, as well). With Obama trying to kill coal off, you would think that these folks would vote their livelihood come November. Again, I think this should tip the balance. Whether it will or not is another story.

The pie chart is also missing hydro-electric power as an option — not surprising, since the environmentalists who support Obama would pretty much like to see every western hydro-electric dam taken down (well, other than Rachel Maddow and her man-crush on the Hoover Dam…)

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

Not really. More energy is consumed in making biofuels than the biofuels contain. That’s like adding batteries to the list of our power sources.

If they drive coal out of business, there isn’t anything ready to replace it except perhaps natural gas — which the Obama administration has been blocking with new rules and restrictions on fracking.

This is a sure-fire way to create shortages and skyrocketing prices for natural gas. It’s been done before, the government mandates more use of gas, but provides no incentive to drill for more of it, and the price “necessarily skyrockets.”

This is a sure-fire way to create shortages and skyrocketing prices for natural gas. It’s been done before, the government mandates more use of gas, but provides no incentive to drill for more of it, and the price “necessarily skyrockets.”

iurockhead on May 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM

This. Only other problem is that nasty little executive order that he “signed” about a month ago. Don’t you remember reading about it? It talks about the issues of regulations.

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

Now that’s not what he said. He said that he’d make it so expensive that anybody trying to build one would go bankrupt. There’s a big difference you just have to put your liberal glasses on to see it. Do I need a sarc tag after that?

“President Obama has a real strategy to take control of our energy future and finally reduce our dependence on foreign oil”

He must mean Canadian foreign oil. Can’t let any of that Canadian oil into Nebraska, can we?

So he shuts down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, sends $2 billion of taxpayer money to drill in Brazil, cuts drilling on Federal lands, so we have to import oil from Hurricane Hugo Chavez or His Royal Bowdowness from Saudi Arabia. Some strategy…

Obama’s war on Old King Coal could cost him dearly…they use lots of coal in OH and PA, and both sides need those electoral votes. Which is why Romney needs to come up with an energy plan for his campaign, or maybe borrow the Perry/Palin plan.

Here in Oregon the Donks are pulling out all the stops to prevent coal exports to China down the Columbia river. I find it ludicrous that people can dig up large masses of earth in Wyoming, cart it over half a continent and over the largest ocean in the world to China 7,000 miles away and still make a profit. I find it even more ludicrous that Americans would use litigation and regulation to prevent those exports.

Then, on the other hand, maybe Obarky just doesn’t like doing business with coal producing states like West Virginia and Wyoming. You know. States with large numbers of people that would rather vote for a convicted felon. States that are home to people like Dick Cheney. States that start with….”W”.

I marched in the huge Tea Party rally on D.C. I will never forget the faces of the coal miners from Pennsylvania that we met there. They were the most stern, serious folks I have ever met. They have no love for Obama.

Thank you. A very interesting and well done chart. I am interested in seeing how they calculate the “rejected energy”–whether it’s the difference between a theoretical output and what we get, or whether it involves some sort of calculation of the sort for incandescent light bulbs (produces x amount of unwanted heat for y amount of wanted light).

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

There is another source of energy that has been left out, hydro-electric. One would think that it would be included since it is a renewable source of energy. Perhaps it was omitted because of all the pleasure craft that are used on the resulting lakes; they burn too much fuel and pollute the air. Ok, let’s get real, liberals can’t stand the idea that people can fun without their direct supervision.

We just fail to understand what he means by “All of the above.” Based on his actions, he means he’s only in favor of energy producing sources that are “above” the ground. He is NOT in favor of any energy sources that are found “below” the ground.